Abstract:Abstract:In the space of a few short years, the UNFCCC process has given birth to a new policy regime, the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage, to prepare for the adverse consequences of climate change to vulnerable societies. The justification for this policy is that a residual domain exists wherein climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and public/private risk transfer mechanisms are insufficient for peoples and places overwhelmed by climate impacts. We link this domain conceptually… Show more
“…It has now been extensively acknowledged that there are distinctions between economic and noneconomic L&D, which have also been referred to as tangible and nontangible L&D (Chiba, Shaw, & Prabhakar, ; Preston, ; Serdeczny, Bauer, & Huq, ; Tschakert et al, ; Wrathall et al, ). A working definition of the UNFCCC (, p. 3) refers to economic losses as “the loss of resources, goods and services that are commonly traded in markets,” and NELs as “items that are not commonly traded in markets.” Damage is presented as being reversible or restorable.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contextual vulnerability studies ask why people and places experience differential impacts from hazards and look beyond direct weather events as the only agents of disasters. For example, Wrathall et al (, p. 281) argued:While climate change stress may reveal itself in ‘crises,’ vulnerability is a latent social condition, and the historical nature of vulnerability is that some had already experienced loss and damage through the process of colonisation and development in the 20 th century.The desire to directly attribute discrete climate extremes to climate change remains prevalent with 24% of publications covering this theme. While progress has been made in the attribution/PEA field (Huggel et al, ; Huggel, Stone, Auffhammer, & Hansen, ; Otto et al, ), there remains differences in opinion regarding the social, political, legal, and scientific utility of it in relation to L&D (Boran & Heath, ; Huggel et al, ; Huggel et al, ; Hulme, ; Lusk, ; Otto et al, ; Parker et al, ; Thompson & Otto, ; Verheyen, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Boyd et al's () typology of L&D conceptualization, for example, is a valuable addition to the literature. Other critical studies looked to problematize L&D (Wrathall et al, ), explore the challenges involved with operationalizing a L&D mechanism (Schinko & Mechler, ), uncover the utility and relevance of L&D for disaster risk management and climate science communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ; Surminski & Lopez, ), and examine different actors' framings of L&D (Boyd et al, ; Ciplet, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ), among others.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major finding of this review was the relative dearth of critical studies which challenged underlying presuppositions of L&D, both conceptually and in analysis of the strategies put forth to address it. Where there was critical analysis it tended to be on points such as ensuring NELs were being considered (Tschakert et al, ; Wrathall et al, ), whether L&D was an accepted concept in different research communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ), and arguments over liability and compensation (Allan & Hadden, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ). While there are many gaps in the literature in relation to critical analyses of L&D, one omission that deserves further research is captured by Johnson (, pp.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on L&D, for example, was established in the 2013 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was established on the grounds that “a residual domain exists wherein climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and public/private risk transfer mechanisms are insufficient for peoples and places overwhelmed by climate impacts” (Wrathall et al, , p. 275). While, conceptually at least, L&D considers the impacts that occur beyond the limits to adaptation, only the preamble to the WIM directly refers to this conceptualization, with the rest of the policy outlining a program more aligned with reducing the risk of L&D. Many researchers and countries in the Global South also desire liability and compensation mechanisms, thereby aligning L&D policy more with this.…”
Climate change researchers argue that a residual domain exists beyond the limits of adaptation to prevent deleterious climate change impacts: this has been labeled as "loss and damage." Over the last 8 years, there has been significant growth in loss and damage scholarship thus making it imperative to take stock of what we know already and directions for future research. We undertook a quantitative review of academic publications (n = 122) in the loss and damage field to date and documented study characteristics, thematic areas, trends, gaps, and opportunities. The first publication appeared in 2010 before a significant increase in published research after 2013. Although increasingly diverse over time, loss and damage studies have primarily focused on technical, political, and normative questions. Our analysis suggests the following: that researchers predominately conceptualize loss and damage as "limits to adaptation"; that the literature is more practical (i.e., descriptive, does not challenge underlying presuppositions) than critical (i.e., challenges underlying presuppositions) in orientation; that loss and damage is conceived as both an occurring and future condition; and that economic dimensions of loss and damage are prioritized in studies. Recommended future research directions include empirical and theoretical explorations of the potential for transformational change; understanding what people value and how they can engage with loss and grief; ensuring the perspectives of the most vulnerable groups are included in decision-making; and greater policy-relevant research and critical analyses of loss and damage conceptualizations and the Warsaw International Mechanism.
“…It has now been extensively acknowledged that there are distinctions between economic and noneconomic L&D, which have also been referred to as tangible and nontangible L&D (Chiba, Shaw, & Prabhakar, ; Preston, ; Serdeczny, Bauer, & Huq, ; Tschakert et al, ; Wrathall et al, ). A working definition of the UNFCCC (, p. 3) refers to economic losses as “the loss of resources, goods and services that are commonly traded in markets,” and NELs as “items that are not commonly traded in markets.” Damage is presented as being reversible or restorable.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contextual vulnerability studies ask why people and places experience differential impacts from hazards and look beyond direct weather events as the only agents of disasters. For example, Wrathall et al (, p. 281) argued:While climate change stress may reveal itself in ‘crises,’ vulnerability is a latent social condition, and the historical nature of vulnerability is that some had already experienced loss and damage through the process of colonisation and development in the 20 th century.The desire to directly attribute discrete climate extremes to climate change remains prevalent with 24% of publications covering this theme. While progress has been made in the attribution/PEA field (Huggel et al, ; Huggel, Stone, Auffhammer, & Hansen, ; Otto et al, ), there remains differences in opinion regarding the social, political, legal, and scientific utility of it in relation to L&D (Boran & Heath, ; Huggel et al, ; Huggel et al, ; Hulme, ; Lusk, ; Otto et al, ; Parker et al, ; Thompson & Otto, ; Verheyen, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Boyd et al's () typology of L&D conceptualization, for example, is a valuable addition to the literature. Other critical studies looked to problematize L&D (Wrathall et al, ), explore the challenges involved with operationalizing a L&D mechanism (Schinko & Mechler, ), uncover the utility and relevance of L&D for disaster risk management and climate science communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ; Surminski & Lopez, ), and examine different actors' framings of L&D (Boyd et al, ; Ciplet, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ), among others.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major finding of this review was the relative dearth of critical studies which challenged underlying presuppositions of L&D, both conceptually and in analysis of the strategies put forth to address it. Where there was critical analysis it tended to be on points such as ensuring NELs were being considered (Tschakert et al, ; Wrathall et al, ), whether L&D was an accepted concept in different research communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ), and arguments over liability and compensation (Allan & Hadden, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ). While there are many gaps in the literature in relation to critical analyses of L&D, one omission that deserves further research is captured by Johnson (, pp.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on L&D, for example, was established in the 2013 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was established on the grounds that “a residual domain exists wherein climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and public/private risk transfer mechanisms are insufficient for peoples and places overwhelmed by climate impacts” (Wrathall et al, , p. 275). While, conceptually at least, L&D considers the impacts that occur beyond the limits to adaptation, only the preamble to the WIM directly refers to this conceptualization, with the rest of the policy outlining a program more aligned with reducing the risk of L&D. Many researchers and countries in the Global South also desire liability and compensation mechanisms, thereby aligning L&D policy more with this.…”
Climate change researchers argue that a residual domain exists beyond the limits of adaptation to prevent deleterious climate change impacts: this has been labeled as "loss and damage." Over the last 8 years, there has been significant growth in loss and damage scholarship thus making it imperative to take stock of what we know already and directions for future research. We undertook a quantitative review of academic publications (n = 122) in the loss and damage field to date and documented study characteristics, thematic areas, trends, gaps, and opportunities. The first publication appeared in 2010 before a significant increase in published research after 2013. Although increasingly diverse over time, loss and damage studies have primarily focused on technical, political, and normative questions. Our analysis suggests the following: that researchers predominately conceptualize loss and damage as "limits to adaptation"; that the literature is more practical (i.e., descriptive, does not challenge underlying presuppositions) than critical (i.e., challenges underlying presuppositions) in orientation; that loss and damage is conceived as both an occurring and future condition; and that economic dimensions of loss and damage are prioritized in studies. Recommended future research directions include empirical and theoretical explorations of the potential for transformational change; understanding what people value and how they can engage with loss and grief; ensuring the perspectives of the most vulnerable groups are included in decision-making; and greater policy-relevant research and critical analyses of loss and damage conceptualizations and the Warsaw International Mechanism.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is seeking to prepare for losses arising from climate change. This is an emerging issue that challenges climate science and policy to engage more deeply with values, places, and people's experiences. We first provide insight into the UNFCCC framing of loss and damage and current approaches to valuation. We then draw on the growing literature on value‐ and place‐based approaches to adaptation, including limits to adaptation, which examines loss as nuanced and sensitive to the nature of people's lives. Complementary perspectives from human geography, psychology, philosophy, economics, and ecology underscore the importance of understanding what matters to people and what they may likely consider to constitute loss. A significant body of knowledge illustrates that loss is often given meaning through lived, embodied, and place‐based experiences, and so is more felt than tangible. We end with insights into recent scholarship that addresses how people make trade‐offs between different value priorities. This emerging literature offers an opening in the academic debate to further advance a relational framing of loss in which trade‐offs between lived values are seen as dynamic elements in a prospective loss space. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e476. doi: 10.1002/wcc.476
This article is categorized under:
Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Comparative Environmental Values
As dangerous climate change becomes more and more likely, a consensus has been reached on the importance of addressing Loss and Damage (L&D) residual to mitigation (i.e., preventing climate change) and adaptation (i.e., adjusting in order to avert adverse impacts). In spite of sharp divisions in terms of how to understand and operationalize L&D, most approaches draw on classic environmental governance, with discrete analogic interventions implemented by States and international actors. L&D is mainly envisioned as an “international court of climate justice” that identifies the culprits (emitters), quantifies harm, and compensates victims. While digital technologies and algorithmic governance have colonized many germane policy fields and virtually all economic sectors, in the L&D field a substantive discussion on the use of information and communication technologies, algorithms, and user‐generated data has been conspicuously absent. By taking the prospect of a “digitalization” of L&D seriously, this advanced review identifies the seeds of emerging digitalized approaches to L&D through an overview of literature. We focus on examples in three key domains associated with L&D—insurance, disaster responses and risk management, and human displacement. These empirical cases are used to investigate the modes of governance that accompany the digital tools through which L&D could be implemented, and the profound changes in climate politics and justice that would accompany a digitalization/algorithmization of L&D.
This article is categorized under:
Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
